INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. M/S. PARWANI TRADERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

MA 85/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue under section 254 of the Income Tax Act concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue contended that the Tribunal's earlier decision mistakenly acknowledged the assessee's compliance in discharging its onus under section 68, as the assessee had not provided loan confirmations from the parties involved. However, the assessee and the Tribunal maintained that all necessary documents and confirmations were duly provided and available in the paperbook. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's application, reiterating that the miscellaneous application was essentially a request for a review of the order, which is not permissible under the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785045 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. M/s NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member M.A. No.85/Kol/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.1894/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata…………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant vs. M/s Parwani Traders Pvt. Ltd.……...............………........……...…..…..Respondent C/o M/s Salrpuria & Co., 3rd Floor, 7, CR Avenue, Kol – 700072. [PAN: AAACZ3659B] Appearances by: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. Jhajaria, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 10, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 11 , 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar , Accountant Member: The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the revenue u/s 254 of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The ld. DR by filing the instant miscellaneous application has submitted that Hon’ble Tribunal in his order dated 15.01.2025 at para 7 has observed that “the assessee has discharged its onus as provided u/s 68 of the Act by filing all the documents, clarifications, qua these loans” which in fact is not apparent from record as the assessee has failed to furnish any loan confirmation from the parties, hence the order passed by the ITAT be set aside and restored by allowing the Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.85/Kol/2025 M/s Parwani Traders Pvt. Ltd 2 miscellaneous application giving an opportunity to the parties to appear for fresh hearing. 3. The ld. AR vehemently opposed the above submission of the ld. DR thereby contending that the department wants to review of the order passed by the Tribunal whereas the Tribunal has discussed extensively and clearly held in its order that the details were available at page 73 of the paperbook. The ld. AR further submits that the Tribunal in its order has mentioned that loan confirmations are available at page no.74 to 82 of the paperbook. He prayed that the miscellaneous application cannot be allowed as the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. 4. Upon hearing the counsels of the respective parties and perusing the materials on record and we find that at para no.5, the Members of the Tribunal has discussed the issues as under: 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case admittedly, the loans taken by the assessee from four parties aggregating to ₹1,15,77,674/-, the details whereof are available at page no.73 of the Paper Book. The said details contained the name of the lenders, PAN no., Addresses, opening balances, loans taken during the year, loans repaid during the year and closing balances. We note from that statement that all these details were before the authorities below and assessee has furnished all the documents qua the lenders along with confirmations which were also available in the Paper Book filed by the assessee. The loan conformations are available at page no.74 to 82. We note that the opening balance of unsecured loan was ₹48,42,300/- loans taken during the year were to the tune of ₹1,18,08,174/-, repayment were ₹1,34,44,474/- and closing balance on 31.03.2018 was ₹32,06,000/- which was shown under the head sundry creditors as trade payable of the assessee . We note that during the course of assessment proceedings itself anomaly was corrected by the assessee by filing corrigendum from the tax auditor the copy thereof is available at page no.97 of the Paper Book. However the ld. AO has added the loans taken during the year were ₹1,15,77,674/- plus expenses payable of ₹2,25,000/- plus bank charges to the tune of ₹5,500/-. We note that all these details qua the loans were available before the ld. AO. We further not that the loans were added under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has frequently Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.85/Kol/2025 M/s Parwani Traders Pvt. Ltd 3 changing its stand during the assessment proceeding. However, the facts available on records as well as filed by the assessee clearly speak the truth that these were unsecured loans taken by the assessee. We note that Navin Parwani has opening balance of ₹1,61,500/- and the closing balance is ₹22,06,000/-. Whereas, in the case of Nirmal Dubey the opening balance is ₹30,02,300/- and there was no borrowing during the year and the entire loan was repaid during the year. In other words, loans were taken from four parties during the instant financial year whereas completely repaid to two parties. The ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the ld. AO by again misconstruing the facts that loans were to the tune of ₹85,08,174/- and not ₹1,15,77,674/- from four parties which is again hypothetical figure. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) after following the decision of PCIT vs. M/s NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra)affirmed the finding of the ld. AO. Considering these facts of the case, we find that the ld. AO has passed the assessment without giving any finding in the assessment order and only stated that the assessee had been changing its stand during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, the ld. CIT (A) again appreciated the facts wrongly. We note that even the confirmations filed by the assessee were available before the authorities below but same were denied to be filed by the assessee.” 5. Keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble Members and considering the facts of case, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 11th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.11.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.85/Kol/2025 M/s Parwani Traders Pvt. Ltd 4 //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "